BREAKING: Gay Former Staffer for Bobby Jindal: He Is Defined By The Anti-Gay Company He Keeps
by Steve PepJune 20, 2010 | 1:16pm
June 20, 2010 at 1:47 pm
I bet he vetos the bill so he can a) give the Pentagon the time to finish their silly study and b) pass the buck to congress.
Another reason to give the executive branch the Line Item Veto.
Brian in Texas says
June 20, 2010 at 1:51 pm
If he vetoes this bill over aircraft spending he will be politically shooting himself in the foot with the far left and LGBT communities. He’s never vetoed a bill so far in his presidency so I doubt he would use his first one to kill DADT for 2010.
June 20, 2010 at 1:58 pm
That would not be the end of the bill. There is a possibility of congressional override of the veto. Also, the Congress must approve an appropriations bill for the Defense Department. The problem is timing. It is basically a matter of trying to complete this before November.
June 20, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Expect the veto. This way Obama can perpetuate his active bigotry against gays and pander to the Far Right and pretend that he had a good reason for breaking one of his most frequently repeated campaign promises.
And don’t think for a minute that this was anything other than exactly what our Fierce Advocate had in mind all along.
David Ehrenstein says
June 20, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Will anytbody bring this up Wednesday when our Bartender in Chief has some select upper-crust fags and dykes over for a drink to celebrate something called “Gay Pride”?
June 20, 2010 at 2:39 pm
If he does, I start campaigning for Hillary in 2012. I’ve been patient but enough is enough.
June 20, 2010 at 2:42 pm
The lie will be complete when he vetoes human rights.I TOLD you he was the Antichrist.
She’d do the very same thing “Beauchance.”
All they want is our money.
And what do we get in return? A swift kick in the nads.
June 20, 2010 at 2:48 pm
June 20, 2010 at 2:56 pm
If Rahm Emmanual thinks this strategy will work, he will be dead wrong.
Two words: Primary Challenger.
June 20, 2010 at 3:31 pm
a veto for any reason will tell uswhat obama really thinks about and our rights. also that will end DADT repeal for years to come because the repuks will regain control of congress in november. hrc should rethink their attendence at the whit house photo op this week. enough of the dog and pony shows.
the snub should of the event should be very
Rob G. says
June 20, 2010 at 3:55 pm
The political naivete of the blogosphere is stunning.
You would never invite someone to you home who pissed all over you, your employees or your friends and neither will Obama.
I haven’t seen any solid achievement from the likes of Ehrenstein, Hudson, Mixner et al.
Just pissing and moaning.
Give a holler when you’ve accomplished something.
June 20, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Why is he saying this? Does he want to be fired?
The Defense Authorization Bill is a must pass piece of legislation. That’s why the measure is being attached to it. So if it get’s vetoed because of overspending then Congress will override the veto or they will re-enact a version omits the offending items.
It it possible that there is a senator that would vote for the bill without the spending if it also disallowed DADT repeal. But the opposite is just as likely. Making legislation is very messy and most people don’t want to know the details.
I can’t understand for the life of me why Gates would be saying this.
Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com says
June 20, 2010 at 4:18 pm
The Kool Aid spitting by Obambot Rob G. aside, my greater concern is the lack of understanding of the facts by those who RIGHTFULLY question Obama’s sincerity.
It’s actually worse.
1. The current “repeal”-related amendment WOULD already “give the Pentagon the time to finish their silly study,” so that’s not the issue.
2. NOR does he NEED to veto the bill in order to KEEP DADT.
Despite insanely inaccurate commentary in the latest online edition of “The Advocate,”
what the Commander-in-Chief did in late May was NOT in our interest.
Congressional advocates of ending the ban and Gay, Inc., went into those White House meetings with the unequivocal five-year old Military Readiness Enhancement Act [MREA] which would have REQUIRED not just repeal of DADT but also an END to discharges which is not necessarily the same thing.
MREA also required an military gay nondiscrimination policy in evaluations, promotions, awards, assignments, etc., and a policy of letting those already discharge re-enlist.
BUT, they left with nothing in their hands but a hymn to political castration at the hands of the President following the orders of Dr. Frankenstein er SECDEF Gates.
“Pelosi said the House weakened its repeal language to mollify the White House.” – Huffington Post, June 3, 2010.
The current amendment does NOT guarantee repeal of DADT but makes it dependent upon “certification” by Obama & Gates & Mullen [read: Gates] AFTER the “study” is ended that repeal would not damage military readiness OR military effectiveness OR unit cohesion OR recruiting OR retention of the Armed Forces.
In other words, all they need claim is that the “study” told them repeal would damage just ONE of those areas and DADT lives.
And even IF they don’t, even if they “kill” DADT, there is NOTHING in the amendment that prevents Gates pulling the dusty ban on gays off the shelf which existed before DADT and continuing to discharge our people indefinitely.
And despite the meme echoed yet again by Pentagon shills working for the Associated Press, if both Obama and Gates REALLY “support” “repeal” WHY did they demand that the GUARANTEE of “repeal” be gutted from any legislation?
June 20, 2010 at 4:21 pm
reading these blog comments usually end up being pretty depressing… THIS ISNT ABOUT DONT ASK DONT TELL. This is about the House wasting taxpayer money on weapons the military insists it doesn’t need… if anything we should be pushing House leadership to dump the C-17 and F-35 provisions which are the biggest threat to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repeal right now.
June 20, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Rob G. thank you for pointing that out. It’s embarrassing that some are this unaware of politics.
June 20, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Howard Dean 2012
June 20, 2010 at 4:59 pm
The Towleroad headline is quite misleading. He’s not threatening to veto the bill because of the DADT provision. When they make a threat like this they are trying to force Congress to cut spending the President doesn’t like.
I’m not an Obama fan by any means, but let’s not get too worked about some posturing that doesn’t involve DADT.
Besides, the DADT repeal is awful legislation. It removes an offensive policy and replaces it with the “discretion” of military leaders. Think that’s any better?
June 20, 2010 at 5:05 pm
We aren’t unaware of politics what we are aware of is constant bullshit from the democrats; Obama has done some very important increases to LGBT equality, but not without his kicking and screaming and this bullshit underhand way of stopping equality under his own pen. We aren’t asking much, and that’s why I’m mad.
Ben Jammin' says
June 20, 2010 at 5:12 pm
That would like REALLY REALLY bad.
June 20, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Mark & Justice:
THANK YOU. The myopic way in which some readers of this blog view this story is ridiculous, and it isn’t helped by Andy’s inflammatory headline.
HE ISN’T VETOING THIS BILL BECAUSE OF DADT. That’s pretty effing clear. And if you want to see some evil motive that really he is vetoing because of DADT, that’s fine, but you are paranoid and just flat-out nuts. I’m looking at you Roscoe; you seem like the typical shortsighted one-issue, knee-jerk reactionary voter…
And this is coming from somone who wouldn’t vote for Obama in a zillion years.
Get a freaking grip people and stop going all drama queen on this…
June 20, 2010 at 7:22 pm
“Fierce Advocate” … yeah right. Obama is such a fraud, I so regret giving him money, making phone calls for him and voting for him.
June 20, 2010 at 8:13 pm
Good for him, its time these fuckers stop spending us into the ground…some people will not be happy until China owns every part of the United States.
June 20, 2010 at 8:20 pm
Remember, that particular DADT legislation was just a sedative for the gay community. It doesn’t/didn’t do anything to lift the policy. Congress would still have to vote to lift DADT.
June 20, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Exactly CB……stop the unnecessary spending!
June 21, 2010 at 11:23 am
I’m looking at you, Jack. I don’t think I said that Obama might veto the bill BECAUSE it has DADT, but that he might veto the bill EVEN THOUGH it has DADT, as a perfectly organized way of getting rid of an issue that he seems really loath to actually deal with beyond giving some pretty speeches.
Is it so difficult to imagine that Obama had the DADT repeal attached to legislation he intends to veto? Is it really so outlandish that a politician would break his campaign promise to a minority he courted so aggressively and has ignored so completely?
June 21, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Well, of course he will! The Congress will put in the DADT repeal legislation provisions for funding weaponry that the military doesn’t want, Obama will veto the repeal legislation saying that he will not sign into law legislation that provides funding for weaponry the military doesn’t want (and also claim that he won’t let the “budget busters” in Congress get away with unnecessary spending), Congress will fail to override the President’s veto, Obama and Congress will toss softballs back-and-forth as to who is to blame for the failure of the DADT repeal legislation, the military will have dodged the DADT repeal bullet, and, finally, everyone will shrug their shoulders and say, “Well, that’s Washington politics for ya”. It’s a win-win situation for all parties–Congress, the President, the JCOS.
The downside? Once again, the LGBT community gets kicked to the curb.
You must be logged in to post a comment.